Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not knocking your strategy...but notice the bolded above.
There in lies the difference. Their house is in the same town. My realtor researched the house and the price they are listing it for is overpriced. Nothing special so it could sit for months...and we would have missed two high months to sell. I would rather wait trying to sell my house where I have some control over making things happen than wait on them to sell their overpriced house where they may not ever come down to reality.
The fact that they are pricing it so high might also indicate that they are not qualified to purchase your home unless they get $X for their own house.
Purely conjecture, but while everyone is playing "Sherlock Holmes" I thought I would throw it out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrah
At least in my state NOT presenting all offers to a seller, no matter how ridiculous, would be illegal and violate the fiduciary relationship.
It's the same here. This is why in my original post I said something along the lines of "unless otherwise agreed to in writing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardvanderbosch
Listing is NOT the issue. The issue is that if an agent is doing their job only offers over minimum amounts that seller will bother looking at should be presented. Realtors who haven't already discussed the lowest price that the seller would entertain, are NOT doing their job! Sellers aren't impressed by a realtor who can dump tons of low ball offers on them. Same goes for buyers who couldn't get financed for a bicycle. A lot of agents don't get it, earn your commission you should be vetting what comes in as an offer!
You just don't seem to get it. Not only am I legally not allowed to decide which offers are presented and which are not, but if I advised my clients to not review any offer under $X then I would be doing them a disservice (essentially violating my fiduciary responsibilities). I've seen PLENTY of offers that I would label as "low ball" turn into perfectly good offers. Why tick someone off unnecessarily and tell them their offer will not be reviewed just because they started low? It's not the first offer that's important. It's where it ends up. Just like price and market value, the two are often not related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardvanderbosch
Not if your contract contains specific instructions as to when an offer will be presented. AGENT means you are acting for ME, you are to represent ME, standing in for ME in the contracted transaction. This means anything that I tell you to do (as long as not illegal) is what you will do! This, I need to bring you ALL offers is a lot of BS! Why would a seller want you you to bring them an offer that is not going to be REALISTIC enough to even bother warranting a counter offer? Brokers love the take "them every offer" approach. They get a commission and don't really care how it comes in.
If you want to do that next time you sell your house, then go ahead. I personally don't think it's a good idea and I would advise any client of mine against implementing such a strategy. Almost any offer warrants a counter. Any time you can encourage someone to negotiate anything can happen. As always, it's the seller's option to agree or not agree to sell.
The last part of your post makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I don't get a commission when I bring an offer. I get a commission when it sells.
Not if your contract contains specific instructions as to when an offer will be presented. AGENT means you are acting for ME, you are to represent ME, standing in for ME in the contracted transaction. This means anything that I tell you to do (as long as not illegal) is what you will do! This, I need to bring you ALL offers is a lot of BS! Why would a seller want you you to bring them an offer that is not going to be REALISTIC enough to even bother warranting a counter offer? Brokers love the take "them every offer" approach. They get a commission and don't really care how it comes in.
Let's put the emphasis here on telling me to do something which is illegal. In my state it is ILLEGAL to not present all offers to sellers. I tried to point that out to you earlier. How hard is that to understand?
BTW--if I recall correctly a contract does not and cannot override state laws. Any part of a contract which violates law is unenforceable.
Why am I absolutely positive that this is the guy who walks into the car dealership and haggles, haggles, haggles, insisting on getting the best, rock bottom price he can, no matter how much time, energy and "insulting, gross underbidding" it requires?
But if he GETS the rock bottom price by being "insulting" and "grossly underbidding," he's had positive reinforcement and will continue that behavior in every market he shops in. When I sold linens in a Federated department store I had people try to haggle with me. AS IF I had the power to reduce prices. But obviously it worked somewhere (a flea market probably), so they'll try it anywhere.
The people bidding on the OP's house probably went to one of those house flipping seminars run by that rude scam artist Armando Montelongo, who for some reason had a TV program on a network that used to be about Arts and Entertainment.
Why am I absolutely positive that this is the guy who walks into the car dealership and haggles, haggles, haggles, insisting on getting the best, rock bottom price he can, no matter how much time, energy and "insulting, gross underbidding" it requires?
No, in fact, I never walk into the car dealership. Only buy used from private owners.
But if he GETS the rock bottom price by being "insulting" and "grossly underbidding," he's had positive reinforcement and will continue that behavior in every market he shops in. When I sold linens in a Federated department store I had people try to haggle with me. AS IF I had the power to reduce prices. But obviously it worked somewhere (a flea market probably), so they'll try it anywhere.
The people bidding on the OP's house probably went to one of those house flipping seminars run by that rude scam artist Armando Montelongo, who for some reason had a TV program on a network that used to be about Arts and Entertainment.
Precisely my point. And if you find me doing just this, then yes, I want you to provide me negative reinforcement because it's bad behavior in general to do this kind of malicious underbidding. I'm not exempt.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this "malicious underbidding" stuff.
It's supply and demand. Plain and simple. Somebody has a product they want to sell. Somebody has the desire to buy that product. It can be a house, a car, or linens. The buyer will pay what they need to pay to fulfill their desire. Or they will wait until they find the item at the price they want to pay. The seller can say yes or no.
I agree that when outside forces get involved, the system gets screwed up. Which is what happened to the RE market with the scammy mortgage companies with their no doc, 125% financing, interest only, zero down mortgages.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this "malicious underbidding" stuff.
Everyone seems to have their own "style" when it comes to negotiating.
Experience has shown me that people who subscribe to this particular theory tend to take a lot longer to buy a house. They continually insult the other side, burn bridges, and basically pee in their own Cheerios on a regular basis until such time as they find a seller who is desperate.
No..house is selling for around $220k. So $1800 just covers our mortgage/taxes/and ins. So we would owe them a credit of approx. $36,000 in 2 years. Ouch..that is all our skin in the game. Since there is no gain in the mo rental payment it's like taking $184k..that's just not possible. It would just behoove us to leave our house on the market and sell for more than that. They have actually made another offer..it is better but still not double for the same reasons stated above. We countered with what would work for us as our final. We shall see....
Indeed. I hope it's worth that much. To me, that'd be serious ouch factor.
[quote=perfectlyGoodInk;31300170]It was a bubble, not a boom, and one of the many reasons it formed was because mortgages had became too easy to obtain (I believe this is largely because banks were able to repackage and resell mortgages within complex derivatives, and this meant banks no longer cared about default risk).
No. It happened because people allowed themselves to be stupid, overextending themselves to purchase homes they had no business purchasing. When I first sought a mortgage, in 2005 during the housing boom, I was told that I prequalified for $225,000. I just laughed at the guy. I knew what I could afford and what I couldn't afford, regardless of what this dude said. It's really simple mathematics. Yet again, as in many things, I say that there should be an intelligence test to determine whether or not you get a mortgage. Let the questions consist of estimation of monthly payment, understanding of the type of mortgage you are seeking, definition of terms, and a few simple math problems. If you fail, no mortgage. That could have prevented America from having the "housing crisis" which now makes it difficult for intelligent people such as myself, who have spectacular credit but unconventional sources of income, to get a mortgage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectlyGoodInk
Bubbles of this magnitude are catastrophic events. The global economy is still recovering from this one and probably will be for years to come.
Therefore, we must stupid-proof the process... not legislate the process into oblivion. There is very little of note that has damaged America which could not be traced back to human stupidity and the allowable proliferation thereof.
And I think that's what the OP was getting at in her first post - she couldn't fathom the intellect (or lack thereof) of the people who gave her those seemingly terrible offers. I'm with the guy who said that she should get snappy with them. Let them know that their stupidity is unacceptable, and they may realize that they're forced to obtain some intelligence.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this "malicious underbidding" stuff.
It comes from people who are clearly way too emotionally involved to make good business decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
